Since that's clearly not true of the brain's behavior, you seem to be making a claim that the mind is supernatural. Is that your position?
> Since that's clearly not true of the brain's behavior, you seem to be making a claim that the mind is supernatural.
No, only that the mind is not a legitimate source of empirical evidence (a negative assertion). Consider the areas that science doesn't (cannot) cover, and notice what they have in common -- usually, the inability to gather empirical evidence on whose meaning similarly equipped observers can agree.
For me to say that the mind cannot produce empirical evidence is uncontroversial -- it's certainly true. For me to claim that the mind is a supernatural entity, I would need to produce evidence for that conclusion. But I can't, so that assumption is itself unscientific.
Science proceeds using the null hypothesis -- meaning a claim is assumed to be false until there's evidence for it. On that basis, until someone produces reliable, empirical, falsifiable evidence by measuring the mind, evidence on which different observers agree, then the burden isn't mine to say that the mind cannot be a source for empirical observations, the burden is on psychologists to say and prove that it can be. So far, psychologists haven't been able to do that.
Without the null hypothesis, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster would be assumed to exist, and someone would have to shoulder the burden of proving that they do not exist (an impossible evidentiary burden). But with the null hypothesis, the burden of evidence for proving Bigfoot properly belongs to those who believe it exists. That same burden rests with those who claim that the human mind can produce empirical evidence, a position for which there is zero evidence.
> To the extent that there is anything that can objectively be called the mind, as an agreed upon real thing there has to be empirical evidence produced by that thing.
The same can be said about love -- everyone knows it exists, but it certainly isn't a source for empirical, objective evidence, the meaning of which all observers accept, evidence that produces consensus. There are any number of similar entities that clearly exist, but that are not appropriate subjects for scientific research.
> This something else is still there, in plain view by all (others behavior) and people present everyday at mental health clinics with very disturbing symptoms, every bit as real as a heart attack.
If I want a PTSD diagnosis, or an Asperger's diagnosis, I can certainly get them. If I want to avoid those diagnoses, I can also do that, by simply acting and speaking in a particular way. If I go to psychologist X I will get diagnosis A. If I go to psychologist Y I will get diagnosis B. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."
Having faked out a psychologist, or been faked out by a psychologist as explained above, can I then fake out a cardiologist? You seem to think the mind and the heart are equally objective as sources of evidence. But they aren't -- the mind is not a physical organ and it cannot produce objective evidence.
> Otherwise the term has no descriptive power, and if I accept you assertion, I might as well reclassify things that I consider evidence of the mind (like utterances) to be evidence of something else.
We take you now to a psychology clinic where a test is about to be performed.
Therapist: "Please define the following words: ignorance, apathy, isolation. Go."
Subject: "I don't know, I don't care, leave me alone!"
Therapist: "Perfect score!"
